> [SA says]:
> > I'm not trying to attack you. Clarity would help
> > avoid such attacks, ...
[Ham]
> The meaning of these two statements is: You're
> attacking me without trying.
> And in the next paragraph you accuse ME of
> "doubletalk"!
Ham, your not that good! Come on now. Clarity
doesn't have to happen right away. Clarity isn't
necessarily something you have a direct handle on - I
don't either! Clarity comes with dialogue.
[SA previously]
> > For you say above, "It is not my place to
> > define another author's philosophy." Yet, how
> does this match up with "...sensibility precedes
> awareness, which is a departure from Pirsig." You
> preconceived what the Moq says about sensibility and
awareness,
> but then you admit that you don't know what the Moq
> says, right? It's this double talk that confuses me
at
> > times. You make a comparison, but then don't know
> > half the comparison.
[Ham]
> We would have a more productive dialogue if you
> would stop trying to analyze
> my motives and "preconceptions," and try to
> understand what I'm saying.
Well, I've asked this question three times now,
and you seem to not have given a direct answer. Maybe
you have, but it's all fuzzy. Dialogue Ham.
[Ham]
> You say it's "double talk" to claim that a part of
> my thesis is "a departure
> from Pirsig." Did not Pirsig state that experience
> is "the pre-intellectual
> cutting edge of quality,"? I maintain that
> sensibility--not experience--is
> pre-intellectual, and that all awareness is
> differentiated (by the
> intellect). This is where I depart from Pirsig, and
> it is why I make the
> distinction between experiential awareness and
> sensibility. So where is the
> doubletalk?
> I also said that Pirsig has not used the term
> "sensibility", so I have no
> way of knowing what it means to him.
Ok, wait, back up here. Do you see where the
confusion starts? I'm going to restate what I asked
for clarity upon that you wrote, I believe to Marsha,
a handful of posts ago as follows: "However, I
believe that because the core self is
"value-sensibility", sensibility precedes awareness,
which is a departure from Pirsig."
I need to clarify myself obviously, too, since
what I'm asking seems to not be getting across very
well. If Pirsig doesn't mention "sensibility", and
"awareness", as I stated previously, can not occur
without any one of the static patterns/levels, and
obviously this categorizes awareness but it doesn't
give it a full-fledged definition, then your
comparison doesn't work. The premise of how you come
up with the definition of sensibility and awareness
would differ. It is not the order such as you state,
"...sensibility precedes awareness, which is a
departure...". This kind of logic is a square peg
trying to be forced into a circle hole. Now if I look
at the order "...sensibility precedes awareness..."
and you are directly making this comparison with the
Moq, but the moq doesn't even mention sensibility as
you define it, and awareness as you define it, then it
is NOT the order "precedes" that is being compared, is
it? It is your comparison. You said you depart from
Pirsig here, but you depart from Pirsig on a lot of
stuff, not just this order "precedes", but on what
sensibility means and awareness means, I mean you
depart from Pirsig on a lot in that sentence. So, I
went on to ask, "How did you come up with this
comparison when it seems your trying to say that
apples taste better than oranges and where the apple
veers from oranges is here, yet, I'm asking you where
the HERE is? Where is the departure point in that one
sentence? I see where the departure is, but I was
asking YOU were this departure is due to sooo many
departures happening in that one sentence. Where you
talking about anyone in particular, any one departure?
[Ham]
> Yet you ask me to "define MoQ's awareness, and the
MoQ's
> placement of sensibility?" insisting that I "know
the answers to both > of these questions" based on my
"conclusion above"
> which is not a "comparison" of our philosophies but
> only a recognized difference.
Again, how can you compare which planet is
better, Mars or Venus? Your comparison had to be
based upon something. Are you saying that the MOQ
differs from your thesis in that one sentence due to
your usage of sensibility and awareness? Thus, since
the moq doesn't define awareness the way you do or
sensibility isn't necessary according to the moq is
this the difference your trying to state? This is all
I keep asking in many different questions hoping one
of my questions and explanations will ring a bell with
you.
[Ham]
> You also threw me for a loop when you admitted that
> my definition of sensibility surprised you:
> > Also, it is interesting, your use of sensibility.
> > To me this implies what's rational, sane, and thus
> > what 'makes sense'.
> Obviously, that's a totally different meaning of the
> word. "Reasonable" or
> "rational" are unrelated to the apprehension,
> cognizance, or awareness of
> organic sensibility.
From Merriam-Webster on-line:
sensible:
"2 a : capable of receiving sensory impressions
<sensible to pain> b : receptive to external
influences : SENSITIVE <the most sensible reaches of
the spirit>
sensibility:
"1 : ability to receive sensations :
SENSITIVENESS <tactile sensibility>"
This is probably my error. These two definitions
are very similar, but sensible has another definition
that means 'reasonable'. Sensibility does not have
another definition according to this source that I've
used that mirrors sensible. So these above
definitions mirror, but sensible is not a root or
rooted in sensibility as I previously thought.
[SA previously]
> > Ok, I see what you mean by sensibility, maybe.
> > Is this what Ron was saying at times, which was,
> his pointing out that s/o is a divide in reality
that
> > can't be avoided, it is primary? Sensibility,
> > according to you, then is this s and o divided -
> it is the divide part?
[Ham]
> The S/O divide is primary to existence, not to
> reality.
You see, that one sentence above is rooted in
this difference between how you view existence and how
the moq views existence. So, your thesis' existence
can't be compared with the moq's existence due to this
root difference.
[Ham]
> However, sensibility is pre-intellectual,
pre-individuated
> value-awareness, which is
> the negated Subject. The Object is what I call the
> "essent". These two
> contingencies are bound together by Value.
So, sensibility is the negated Subject, but
awareness is sensibility, thus in the subjective
division, yet, awareness is a limited category within
this division of sensibility where awareness is only
used in the context of a self?
[SA previously]
> > So, awareness is sensibility, but only in the
> > context of a self, in the self/other division?
[Ham]
> By George, I think you've got it!
Thank goodness! It took a very, very long time,
years I guess.
[SA previously]
> > Whereas, sensibility is more absolute and thus,
> not bound to just self/other division within the
> context of a self. Therefore sensibility involves
other
> > divisions such as this/that, but is not limited to
a
> > self/other division?
[Ham]
> Sensibility is actually the realization of Value in
> a holistic,
> undifferentiated sense.
You see, your use of Value differs from what I
understand value to mean. Your putting value in the
subjective category.
[Ham]
> Since we apprehend it only through the five organic
> senses as interpreted by the brain, awareness is
> always differentiated in
> the same way that objective experience is
> differentiated.
"...awareness is always differentiated in the same
way that..." essent? is differentiated? But I think
essent is kin to sensibility in your thesis so do you
have another word/concept in objective experience that
is kin to awareness?
[SA previously]
> > It seems that value and quality in a Moq sense
> > are not subjective as noted in SOM type
> > philosophies. Value does not take on an
> subjective or an objective slant. Thus, experience
doesn't
> imply awareness, which is such a crazy notion.
[Ham]
> I disagree. If awareness is subjective, value and
> quality must also be
> subjective.
Ah, but the moq doesn't say awareness is
subjective and yet it is, at least that's how I see
it. It's not objective either, but yet it is. The
moq is defining this other way of knowing reality that
is real. But you see, existence and awareness in your
thesis, thus, according to you has to be subjective or
objective. That's why comparing your thesis and the
moq is like saying a tree is better than a nebula and
then leaving it at that. Or an applepie to my taste
buds is different than a blueberry pie, and find out
the difference I was referring to was color, not
taste, or maybe it's blueberries and not apples,
cinammon, etc... Comparing your thesis and the moq
will go back to this SOM premise of your thesis all
the time, and once we leave this premise and try to
discuss awareness, sensibility, or a rock, etc... in
definitional terms it will also come back to this SOM
premise you have. So, all these particulars such as
blueberries or apples or is it taste or color go no
where based off of different perspectives. So, it's
not about how you depart from Pirsig in what awareness
is and sensibility is, it is, but isn't. It is due to
this SOM premise of yours and that's where the
discussion will always lead back to in comparisons and
differences. I can't compare moq awareness straight
on with your thesis usage of awareness - it doesn't
make sense. Do you understand now?
[Ham]
> How (or what) can value be if there is
> no subject to realize it?
You see, for you 'subject' means something
different for you. Subject for me can be anything.
You'll have to be more specific, more precise.
[Ham]
> A world without awareness is a world without value.
Nobody said otherwise.
[Ham]
> I note, also, that you equate experience with
"events". No wonder I
> confuse you!
Yeaper! :-) And you know what's funny. I saw
experience to mean an event before the moq came along
in my life.
[SA previously]
> > Experience as I understand it, is an event.
[Ham]
> Well, sir, I find that a "crazy notion".
Of course it is. Have you read Oui's (Christie
Hefner) conversation with Pirsig? Remember the whole
electric shock therapy, and he's falling out with
society, etc... Welcome to the world of where all the
crazy people live! :-) Zen monks, trees, gardens,
monkeys, and such hahahahaha.
[Ham]
> Experience is the AWARENESS of a
> phenomenon, whether it is an idea, a desire, a
> feeling, an object, or an
> event. I don't know any epistemology that defines
> experience as an event.
> Can you cite a Pirsig reference that makes such a
> definition?
"Quality is a direct experience independent of
and prior to intellectual abstractions." - Lila (Ch.
5)
SA: So, thus the question, "What is quality?",
which leads this "direct experience" to be not just
defined as intellectual, but also social, biological,
inorganic, and dynamic.
"Pure experience cannot be called either physical
or psychical: it logically precedes this distinction."
- Lila (Ch. 29)
SA: Pure experience is quality. Quality is static
and dynamic.
"This means Quality is not just the result of a
collision between subject and object. The very
existence of subject and object themselves is deduced
from the Quality event."
SA: Thus, "direct experience" is "quality" is "pure
experience" is an "event". This is the way I put it
together. Experience is not just subjective or
objective in definition. Experience is this quality
that is dynamic and static. Quality is value, moral,
an experience, an event, that is not limited by
subjective and objective philosophy/perspective.
> [Ham, previously]:
> > He [Pirsig] has postulated quality as the primary
> "empirical" reality, but makes no mention of a
primary
> "metaphysical" reality.
> [SA previously]:
> > Ahhh, Ham, the m in moq stands for metaphysics.
> > You see, it is these seemingly disregards for such
> moq basics that confuses me. This is exactly why
some
> say such things as, "Have you ever read any of
> Pirsig's books?" and etc...
[Ham]
> You force me to be critical, which I did not want to
> be. The M may stand
> for metaphysics, but that's as far as its author
> goes. Metaphysics is
> concerned with reality beyond the physical world.
"physical world", be more precise please.
Intellectual is not necessarily biological or
inorganic, so, this metaphysics covers this, too.
[Ham]
> Dagobert Runes calls
> Metaphysics "...the science of being and its causes,
> as distinguished from
> the study of some particular aspect of being."
> Pirsig posits no primary
> cause for empirical reality, no transcendent source
> or supra-natural essence
> as fundamental to the experienced world. Without
> the fundamentals he cannot
> explain the origin of Quality or its cognitive
> perception.
> His fictionalized philosophy deals exclusively with
the
> empirical world, hence
> does not meet the classical criteria of a
> metaphysical thesis.
What of the romantic criteria? Ham? Dq is a
godhead you know.
[SA previously]
> > Ok. Why does metaphysics have to equate creator?
> > Anyways, wholes sections of the Lila cover this,
> as has been repeatedly expressed to you and quoted
to
> you over the years that I've been participating in
> this forum. Do you see otherwise? As another event
> that happens here, are you trying to create
controversy
> to stir discussion, as gav's recent try to say
> Australian aborigines have been dated to be present
on earth
> > since 400,000 years ago?
[Ham]
> Oh yeah! I'm here to stir up trouble. Didn't you
know I'm a
> renegade? I spend hours trying to drum up ideas to
confuse you all.
Well, you do a good job, as surely as moq
confuses you.
[Ham]
> Here's an opportunity to use your definition of
"sensibility". Tell me
> now, SA, does that sound sensible to you?
Well, lots has been covered.
[Ham]
(Time to go back to the woods and cast some long
shadows.)
The sun does that, unless I help this by making a
fire, using an electric light, etc...
leaves moving,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on
Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
